How things look through an Oregonian's eyes

March 31, 2014

Though I enjoy starting blog post titles with Dude, where's (see here), I'm bothered by the subject matter of this one.

Because the City of Salem has disappeared a five-year project aimed at making seismic upgrades and other renovations to the Civic Center, along with building a new police facility.

At the March 24 City Council meeting, City Manager Linda Norris said it is unlikely that a bond levy for the project will be on the November ballot.

Unless some other source of funding is found, this means that children and other visitors to the Library will continue to use a building that likely would collapse when, not if, the BIg One earthquake hits Oregon. Also, the current police headquarters is on the ground floor of what probably will be a pancaked Civic Center.

Deeply unfortunate.

Even more so, because many people in the Salem community were ready and willing to back an efficient $40 million project rather than the wasteful $80 million project City officials have been pushing.

At the City Council meeting, architect Geoff James of Salem Community Vision said in a public comment period that his group would work to pass a $40 million levy.

Twenty million each for a new police facility and Civic Center renovations. Dozens of people even wore a sticker showing their support for this.

This has been a botched effort from the beginning, which is all too typical of how the City of Salem goes about its business these days.

They have consistently done their best to keep their planning efforts out of the public eye. Which came back to bite them when the public spoke loudly after being presented with a fait accompli and said, "We don't want to pay more than $80 million for a project that should cost $40 million."

The project disappeared as secretively as it began.

No public hearings. No formal City Council discussion. Just an announcement by the City Manager that the project is on hold until June when, maybe, the Council will take up the subject again. Even Statesman Journal editorial page editor Dick Hughes was taken aback by the sudden secretive action.

Somehow I had missed the Salem City Council’s decision not to put a bond measure on the November ballot for a new police facility and upgrades of the Civic Center and library.

There was a lot of misunderstanding about the city’s proposal, as well as what action the council might take last week.

That illustrates how the city’s public-outreach methods are old-fashioned instead of innovative, as I wrote about in my March 9 column.

What's particularly galling about this debacle is how Mayor Anna Peterson likes to talk about Salem being a "collaboration capital." Yet City officials avoid collaborating with concerned citizens like the plague. It's a My Way or the Highway bunch who inhabit the managerial offices at City Hall.

All they had to do was say to the many advocates of a less costly proposal, "Help us come up with a better idea." This probably would have produced a genuinely collaborative plan, and a united front for a $40 million November bond levy vote.

Now the seismic upgrades and police facility plans are stalled. Going nowhere, because the public who were ignored by City officials during four years of mostly secretive planning didn't jump to embrace an over-priced project plan they had no opportunity to be involved with.

My hope is that upcoming City Council elections will bring some much-needed fresh approaches to a Salem city government that badly needs a management makeover.

My fear is that the propensity of City officials to play secretive political games will continue. This is just a hypothesis at the moment, but I could see them fiddling inappropriately with existing pots of money, finding a barely-legal way to fund a Police Facility/Civic Center project without asking for voter approval.

Hopefully this won't happen. Our local public servants need to remember why that term is used for them.

March 29, 2014

She has worked hard to put on a free showing of "Wild Things" next Thursday, April 3, 6:30 pm, at the Loucks Auditorium adjacent to the Salem, Oregon Library.

(Not the 1998 erotic thriller; the 2013 award-winning film about how the federal Wildlife Services agency needlessly kills tens of thousands of carnivores each year.)

Laurel wrote a Salem Weekly opinion piece, "The Taxpayer Funded War Against Predators," about the film and Wildlife Services. Excerpt:

Few people know that a federal agency uses both cruel and brutal traps, along with dangerous poisons, to kill our native wildlife. Most people have no idea about the scope of the killing by the USDA Wildlife Services agency. Every year it kills thousands of coyotes, as well as cougars and wolves, at taxpayer expense, mostly for the benefit of private ranchers.

Most dog owners are unaware that dogs in Oregon have fallen victim to the barbaric traps. Some have died in traps while their horrified owners tried helplessly to free them, one as recently as last spring. Wildlife Services traps have been set close to publicly used hiking trails, often with little warning to the public.

Thousands of non-target wildlife are killed in the traps. Former Wildlife Services trappers say the motto was “shoot, shovel, and shut up” when a pet or non-target animal was found trapped.

...It is time for a change in what Wildlife Services does. The public needs to learn about the agency’s little-known needless war against top predators, and pressure elected officials to take action. See “Wild Things.”

The film will be followed by a panelist discussion and Q&A. Panelists include Dr. Robert Beschta of OSU and John Lungren, an environmental attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center.

March 27, 2014

Reading today's Salem Breakfast on Bikes post about the sculpture garden at the downtown Conference Center made me wonder if the author had tuned in to my wife's brain.

This is almost exactly what Laurel has said several times, albeit in different words, when we drive by this uninviting concrete expanse.

The barrenness of the sculpture garden is an ornamental emptiness and far, far from anything we might consider a "functioning city scene." It is an attempt at delight, but it fails at dignity. If anything, the sterile concrete expanse looks cheap, an expression of that "demeaning bottom line."

...People don't, therefore, congregate in the space unless there is a special event at the Conference Center. It is an annex and patio for the Conference Center itself, not a public space and "functioning city scene." It is marketing adjunct, not urban fabric.

In addition, my wife finds the lack of trees to be one of the worst design failures of this unattractive area.

If it is raining, who is going to venture out onto the sculpture garden during a break in conference action? But if it is sunny and hot, as it is for much of Salem's summer, the lack of shade makes the concrete wasteland unappealing.

Putting expensive public art in a place where very few people congregate is ridiculous. It'd be better to have the art in Riverfront Park, Bush Park, the Courthouse Square bus mall, or almost anywhere else.

I drive by the sculpture garden almost every day. I don't recall ever seeing a single person there. As noted by the Breakfast on Bikes post, there is a complete absence of a "functioning city scene" at this location.

Another Salem blog, LoveSalem, riffed off the B on B post.

Creative ideas here. I only wish City of Salem and/or Conference Center officials had the vision to run with them. Greenery, whether of the garden or decorative variety, would go a long way toward making the sculpture garden a place that attracts people.

You know what would really improve that sad wasteland?

Growing things ... You know, gardens.

Work with MPFS [Marion-Polk Food Share] community gardens program to round up gardeners, get the Convention Center to underwrite all the costs, Fresh Start youth to build raised beds, set up irrigation systems, and presto!

Life in an otherwise sterile, dead, depressing place.

Good southern exposure, so great sun. A bunch of raised beds, an enclosed shed for garden tools, and then the sculpture could be in a garden.

Could even build a few handicapped-accessible raised beds designed to allow a person in a mobility chair to get underneath the ledge so that handicapped folks could garden too.

March 25, 2014

This is Day 1 of the Mayor Anna Peterson apology/retraction watch. No response yet to the email I sent her, with a cc to the Salem City Council.

I said what I did after listening to Peterson make a preachy, inaccurate mini-speech during a testy exchange at last night's City Council meeting.

She was fighting mad about the calm, reasoned, truthful things architect Geoffrey James was saying during the public comment period about the City's overpriced $80 million proposal for a new police facility at the Civic Center and renovations to City Hall.

Councillor Laura Tesler, seemingly operating from a script of attempted "gotcha" questions, had flamed out on her desperate attempt to challenge James' credentials and expertise. James handled his answers with aplomb and courtesy.

Unlike Tesler. And then, Peterson.

I couldn't believe that Mayor Peterson was actually claiming that the process used to select the Civic Center as the best location for a new police facility had been open to public view, and offered citizens good opportunities to weigh in on the decision.

Here's how the Statesman Journal reported it in "Salem City Council faces critics of new Civic Center."

James also recommended considering alternative locations for the police department as a cost-saving measure, and Peterson countered by saying the city looked at 16 alternative locations.

“I want to dispel what I’m hearing that we have not been open; that we have not been available to the public,” Peterson said. “This is not a city council or a city government that lightheartedly drew up plans.”

So here's what I said to Mayor Peterson and the City Council this morning. I gave the message a subject line of "Your unfactual message last night":

Mayor Peterson, sitting in the audience at last night’s City Council meeting, I found your statement about the City’s supposed openness about the police facility siting decision to be disturbing for several reasons.

(1) You delivered your comments in a preachy tone unbecoming for a public servant who is addressing members of the public with valid concerns about a $128 million (including financing costs) project. So your style was inappropriate.

(2) Your statement was factually incorrect. So the substance of what you said was inappropriate.

I’ve spent considerable time researching how the siting decision was made. After writing up the results of my research, I sent it to Courtney Knox Busch, the lead staff person for this project. I asked her to correct any mistakes in my conclusions. She didn’t respond, so I must assume that what I concluded is correct.

To quote myself:

"The City of Salem decided to build a new police facility at the Civic Center without any public hearings or public discussion. City staff and the Mayor made this decision."

A fairly lengthy blog post contains the basis for this conclusion. Read all about it here:

I believe an apology and retraction is in order. The Mayor of Salem shouldn't use the City Council podium as a soapbox for spreading inaccurate information. This degrades trust in City government, which already is low.

Like the saying goes, we all are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. I have done my best to uncover the facts about how the City made a decision to site a new police facility at the Civic Center. I’ve asked City staff to correct any misunderstandings I might have. None were pointed out.

If you have new information to share on this issue, please send it to me with appropriate factual documentation. Otherwise I will continue to assume that what I said is true: "The City of Salem decided to build a new police facility at the Civic Center without any public hearings or public discussion. City staff and the Mayor made this decision.”

— Brian Hines

Unlike officals at the City of Salem, I'm pleased to admit when I've been proven wrong. So I look forward to getting more information from the Mayor's Office about how marvelously open the siting decison was, and how the City reached out to the public early on so they could be involved in the decision-making process.

March 23, 2014

The idea of scratching items off a list of stuff I want to do before I die seems too organized and Protestant-ethic'ish. Why not just do what you want to do, when you feel like doing it?

Which is pretty much how I ended up taking my longboard to southern California this weekend. A dream of mine, though let's not call it part of my bucket list.

Some time ago I'd told my daughter that one day I wanted to land paddle on Venice Beach's boardwalk -- one of the meccas for this activity. Sunny. Warm. Flat. Filled with interesting sights.

I wasn't sure whether I wanted to bring my longboard gear on this trip, though. I haven't been doing much longboarding after gettting an outdoor elliptical bike, a StreetStrider. But when my daughter asked if I was going to do my land paddling thing at Venice Beach, I thought, hell, yes.

Pimped up my ride. Forked out $25 to Alaska Airlines for a checked bag. Practiced at my daughter's house, accompanied by my skilled scooter'ist granddaughter, Evelyn, a first grader.

Saturday morning we arrived at Venice Beach, ready to roll.

The boardwalk started off in a residential area. Noticing the "Walk Your Bike" signs on the pavement, we figured that a scooter and a longboard weren't bikes. So ignored them. Along with almost everybody on bikes. Free spirits rule on the Venice Beach boardwalk.

I changed t-shirts after making a $5.99 buy at one of the shops along the boardwalk. Part of me wondered whether it was cool to wear a Venice Beach skull t-shirt while at Venice Beach. However, I figured that this could be construed as an ironic hipster statement -- so uncool that it is cool.

Near the end of our Venice Beach visit I headed off by myself for a final boardwalk run.

I put my iPhone into a Miveu chest mount. The Miveu case makes the iPhone into sort of a poor man's GoPro camera with a fish-eye lens. It was the first time I'd used the gadget. Worked fine for me. You'll see that the boardwalk had gotten pretty damn crowded by early Saturday afternoon, when I made the video.

I'm deeply proud that I only ran into one person during my several miles of longboard land paddling along Venice Beach: my wife. Hit her on the leg once with the end of the Big Stick. To her credit, she yelled "Hey, dude, watch where you're going!"

[Update: After watching the video again, I realized that it takes on a whole different vibe if you mute the sound on the You Tube video, press the start icon, then play the music from Jaws in a different browser tab while watching my land paddling.]

Give me a chance to explain why you should care about a local issue that, if left on its current course, really could lead to some nasty things happening.

Lots of taxpayer money wasted. Downtown riverfront area uglified. Many lives being lost.

I’m talking about the City of Salem’s $80 million plan to build a new police headquarters at the Civic Center, along with renovating City Hall and the Library.

With financing costs added, the total balloons to $128 million. Who pays? You do, if you live in Salem.

The good news is that Salem Community Vision (SCV), a group I’m involved with, has come up with a half-price alternative, $40 million, or $64 million including financing.

...The bad news? City of Salem officials, including Mayor Anna Peterson and City Manager Linda Norris, haven’t shown any sign of changing course.

...Currently the Library and City Hall aren’t earthquake safe. Likely they’ll“pancake” in the Big One that is a matter of when, not if, it hits Oregon.

Seismic upgrades are essential to save the lives of visitors and staff.

But Salem voters probably won’t approve a wasteful $80 million bond measure. A lean $40 million measure has a much better chance of passing: $20M for a new police facility, $20M for Civic Center renovations.

Unfortunately, today Salem City Manager Linda Norris released a staff report for the Monday, March 24 City Council meeting, 6:30 pm, that shows City officials are clueless about what is needed to make the Civic Center earthquake-safe, and give the Police Department a functional new headquarters.Download Salem Police Facility staff report

Norris has ignored public testimony that shows how the project goals can be achieved for $40 million less.

This borders on governmental malpractice. Our local public "servants" (yeah, right) are so committed to a wasteful $80 million addition on Civic Center property, they are willing to run the risk of a bond measure failing.

Which means, no seismic upgrades or new police facility. First responders, city staff, and library visitors killed in the collapsed rubble when, not if, the Big One earthquake hits.

On Monday, March 24th, 2014 at 6:30 pm, Salem City Council currently plans to consider approving a new city police facility, and some seismic improvements to the civic center, that will cost you and other city taxpayers $ 80 million.

Salem Community Vision (SCV) is a group of concerned citizens working with professionals who believe we can cut the cost of this project in half and still accomplish the same goals. SCV supports a new police and municipal court facility as well as well as seismic upgrades to the Civic Center and Library.

Moving the police (and city court) away from the Civic Center could save tens of millions of dollars, put it in a more functional/safe location, and leave room for expansion...and allow for seismic upgrades to the Civic Center and Library for less -- saving even more by moving first-responder agencies from leased space to the Civic Center.

Polling shows that the current City proposal is in serious jeopardy of failure. However, SCV believes that if the bond is more affordable, it has a chance to pass.

On March 24th, the Salem City Council will receive a staff report and will decide either to modify the proposal, postpone it or move forward with the current plan, but add the Library seismic upgrades.

TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE OUTCOME, WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT ON MARCH 24TH AT 6:30 P.M. The more people who show up, the more the City Council will listen to the public.

SCV will have lapel stickers at the meeting that you can wear to show your support.

This is NOT a public hearing. BUT, citizens can speak during the first part of the meeting under Audience Comments for up to 3 minutes each. Even if you do not choose to speak, your presence will count!

AND, if you can't go to the meeting, you can e-mail your opinion to all city councilors at:[email protected]

March 19, 2014

My wife and I have been happy Toyota Highlander Hybrid owners since we bought one in 2006. We got the base version, rather than the Limited, figuring that we already were spending extra on the hybrid technology.

This year we decided to buy a new Highlander. Our 2006 was in good shape; we've had no mechanical problems with it. It just had some annoying limitations which, after a test drive, we could tell were missing from the 2014 model.

It isn't a hybrid, mostly because Toyota has made the questionable decision to only offer the hybrid in Limited trim -- which makes that model doubly expensive. So while our 2006 Highlander Hybrid was rated at about 26-27 mpg overall, the 2014 XLE overall mpg is 20.

That's a drawback.

But in every other way I find the 2014 Highlander considerably more enjoyable to drive than our 2006 Highlander Hybrid. Here's why. Some of the reasons relate to the higher trim level of our new car. Others, though, apply to all 2014 Highlander models.

(1) It handles much better. Our old Highlander felt like it was floating. And not in a good way. There was very little road feel. The steering was soft. I didn't like driving it in snow because the steering and suspension didn't give a good feel for what the car was doing. The 2014 Highlander is far superior. it won't be mistaken for a BMW. However, Toyota has markedly improved the Highlander's handling.

(2) The car looks more macho. I'm not enough of a car geek to be able to explain how the Highlander's style has changed. The overall effect is more mascuiline, though. I admit that part of my reason for saying this is that I read it in some professional reviews of the 2014 model. But its true. This isn't just a "soccer Mom" SUV. The styling has some attitude.

(3) Road noise is much reduced. Again, I don't know how Toyota did it, but the 2014 Highlander is much quieter at freeway speed (or any speed, really) than the 2006 Highlander. I've never driven a Lexus; the Toyota salesman who gave us a test drive said this car is Lexus-like, noise-wise. I can believe it. Combined with the much better handling, this car gives off a vibe of solidity and silence.

(4) Technology is way cooler. In part this is due to us moving up from the base Highlander. Also, technology has evolved a lot in the past eight years. I can finally stream music from my iPhone. The XLE has a navigation system, though we usually use our iPhones to navigate. However, I like how the driver's info area can display what road you're on and what the speed limit is without the navigation system being activated. I like that feature. The Entunes system is easy to use, with capabilities I haven't begun to familiarize myself with.

(5) Technology isn't overdone, though. Toyota has done a good job combining old-fashioned and new-fashioned in the dash. The radio volume control and automatic temperature setting are both set by turning a dial. Way easier to do than with a push button. (Naturally the steering wheel has the usual sort of fingertip ready buttons, including volume and changing stations/audio modes.)

(6) The power liftgate has grown on me. At first I thought the power rear liftgate was a useless extra. Now I use it all the time. I would have been happy to keep on lifting the hatch like I did with the 2006 Highlander. There's something satisfying, though, about pushing a button and watching the hatch instantly do my bidding. Wish there was a way to have this option installed on my wife.

(7) Bigger is a little bit better. l thought our 2006 Highlander was nicely sized. It held everything we needed to take to central Oregon on regular long weekend trips to a co-owned cabin. The 2014 Highlander is several inches longer, and somewhat wider. At first it felt much bigger to me, which was somewhat disconcerting. I'm getting used to the car now, though. I drive it more than my wife, who has called it a "tank." That's an exaggeration. It's a mid-sized SUV. And what's wrong with a tank? (See #2 above.) The interior is decidedly roomier. The side mirrors do seem larger; this might help explain why my wife feels the car is so much bigger than our old Highlander; I fold the driver's side mirror when I pull into our narrow carport.

(8) Yay! for the in-dash shelf. Simple thing to do. Great idea. The 2014 Highlander has a long open in-dash shelf where cell phones, dark glasses, and such can be stored and retrieved. Both the driver and passenger can easily access it. Plus, there's a cavernous storage bin between the seats. Way bigger than the bin in our 2006 Highlander.

(9) Amenities, amenities. It's marvelous to now have keyless entry. Along with heated seats. Plus the aforementioned automatic climate control system. Not only searately for driver and passenger, also for back seats.

(10) Should be much better in snow. Our 2006 Highlander Hybrid, though it had AWD capability via the electric motor, wasn't a true all-wheel-drive SUV. Early on I realized that it sucked in snow, largely because of the tires. I couldn't get up our sloping driveway until I got Blizzak winter tires. Our 2014 HIghlander has Bridgestone all-season tires that are highly rated for snow and ice. And the car has much better AWD options, not all of which I fully comprehend yet (still have to read the manual closely).

So there's my ten pluses. My main negative so far, and this isn't a big one, is the lack of a digital speedometer. Seems like it would have been easy to put a digital speed readout in the driver information. display.

I like how my 2011 Mini Cooper shows the speed digitally. It is just easier to keep track of my speed, and to compare a speed limit sign with how fast I'm going. An analog speed display with a moving needle just seems so old-fashioned -- though I'm sure there are good reasons why Toyota did this.

Not because it's a bad idea to build on Salem's high-quality high school music scene and have some sort of nationally recognized festival, or whatever, celebrating all things scholastic music'ish.

Because I wanted something grander and Wow! inducing after reading Davis' first paragraphs, where he talked about newspaper crusades for noble causes.

Since his opinion piece has gotten just two comments in two days, only one of which is clearly in favor of the idea, it appears that most Salem-area residents share my nice idea, but yawn... reaction to his vision.

Here's my alternative: Let's make downtown Salem a visitor mecca.

I'd jump right on board any ship that starts sailing in that direction.

Ever since I moved here in 1977, people have been talking about how much potential downtown has. Yet somehow the Salem Downtown HIstoric District, and associated adjacent areas, never gets over the hurdle that separates "nice place" from "great place."

So how about it, Statesman Journal? Are you willing to support a multi-year, multi-pronged effort to make downtown Salem a much more vibrant, prosperous, and people-attracting place?

Off the top of my head, just uphill from my bald spot, I'll share some ideas about what would help to make downtown a visitor mecca. For sure, others would have additional and better ideas.

(1) Streetscape away. Plans already have been roughed out to make downtown much more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Reducing the number of lanes on some streets would make the Historic District vibe way more appealing for visitors. (See here and here.)

(2) Establish a genuine active downtown association. It's bizarre that Linda Norris, the City Manager, abolished the downtown association so she could rule over a new version herself and decide how funds provided by businesses are spent. This dictatorial action needs to be undone. Downtown businesses should take the lead in deciding how the area evolves.

(3) Change the food cart rules. The current city code makes it impossible for Salem food carts to thrive. A place in or near downtown needs to become a permanent food cart haven. Naysayers who worry about the effect on downtown eateries need only look at how Portland restaurants are faring after a food cart explosion.

(4) Allow brew pubs downtown. I can't understand why City of Salem officials haven't allowed brew pubs in the downtown area. This seems like a no-brainer. They're thriving in other parts of Salem. Calling them an "industrial" use that doesn't belong in the urban core is ridiculous.

(5) Have a Salem Sunday Streets event every month. Last year some downtown streets were closed off to cars, freeing them for walkers, bicyclists, and other forms of alternative transportation. Like a longboard land paddler, moi. The event was a lot of fun; great way to draw people downtown and show them what a city is like nearly carless.

(6) Build on the Minto Brown pedestrian bridge. This bridge is going to be a winner. It's one of the best things to happen to the downtown area in a long time. Downtown groups (see 2 above) need to build on this, as does the Boise Cascade redevelopment. Rethink the nursing home notion, Mountain West Investment. Is this really the best use for a prime riverfront lot so close to downtown?

(7) Ditch the Third Bridge planning. The City of Salem needs to walk away from its commitment to spending $400 million or more on an unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge. Taxpayer funds can be spent much more wisely elsewhere. This bridge would drive people away from downtown. Literally.

(8) Make sure no more downtown trees are removed for no good reason. Salem's tree ordinance needs to be revised to assure that never again will political machinations substitute for expert arborist advice when it comes to cutting down large beautiful downtown trees.

But I'll be visiting my daughter and her family in southern California fairly soon. My dream has been to experience the Land Paddling Holy Land, the boardwalk along Venice Beach (well, it isn't really holy, which is one reason I want to go there).

Figuring that a senior citizen longboarder might not be as rare on Venice Beach as it is here in Oregon, I wanted to put on the Shark Wheels as an additional attention-grabber.

It wasn't until I took a photo of my Shark Wheel'ed longboard in a setting sun that I realized, "St. Patrick's Day!" OK, two days away, but still... I'm greened up, wheel-wise.

I like how my longboard looks from the front now. The Roe Racing Mermaid has some personality. Sweet, yet edgy.

I'm also greened-up bearing-wise. I had some Shake Junt skateboard bearings waiting for the new wheels. When I took them out of their box, I thought Cool! They're green! Hadn't realized that when I'd bought them. Good longboard wheel karma. (Bearing is under the nut in center of photo.)

I also belatedly installed the BoardBrake from Boolah Boards that's been sitting in our garage for months. It needed a wood "riser" -- the block on the left side of the photo above -- because the Roe Racing Mermaid is set up with risers on the trucks for LDP, long distance pumping. Which I adapt to long distance paddling.

So the pad on the BoardBrake that scrapes the road/trail surface when a pedal is pushed wouldn't reach the ground when I first installed it. The Boolah Boards guy, Tony Knapp, promptly sent me a longer push-piece.

That helped, but I still needed to add the block of wood to get the pad making good contact with the ground. In the photo above I'm pushing with my hand as my foot would while riding the board. A few short test runs in our carport shows that the BoardBrake should work well now.

Venice Beach, here I come!

Now I've got a better chance of stopping before I run into a beautiful, curvaceous, bikini-clad roller blader, which would cause her and me to collapse together into a tangled mass of intertwined arms, legs and other body parts.

Which, now that I think about it, doesn't sound bad at all. Maybe I'll take off the BoardBrake before hitting the Venice Beach boardwalk.

I'm going to take my longboard, protective gear, and other stuff in a Decent Hardware board bag that's been waiting for an Alaska Airlines flight to southern Calfornia. Checked today to see how everything would fit. Result: nicely.

That's how I both go and stop on my longboard. No pushing with a foot, or dragging a foot. Dragging the rubber tip of the Big Stick works fine to stop at slow speeds, but not so well at higher speeds. And since I've accustomed to having both feet on the board, my ability to do the footbrake thing is minimal.

So now I have two ways to stop: the BoardBrake and dragging the Big Stick. And four attention-grabbing ways to roll, the green Shark Wheels.

I'll be sure to share photos and maybe a video of my Venice Beach longboarding. Plus, perhaps, a Los Angeles Times newspaper clipping:

Oregon man, 65, charged with sexual harassment after running into 22 year old female Venice Beach roller blader on his skateboard.

March 14, 2014

After Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, while Oregon's ballot initiative failed after a horribly mismanaged campaign by Paul Stanford and the other Oregon Cannabis Tax Act folks, I figured that this state's marijuana legalization leaders would get their act together.-

I've been wondering why competing initiatives are being put before Oregonians.

Seemingly this will confuse what should be a slam-dunk marijuana legalization vote this November. Geez, probably we will be voting on an initiative to overturn a ban on gay marriage. That should bring out progressive and libertarian-minded voters.

Polls show that a majority of Americans favor legalizing recreational marijuana. Since Oregonians are greener than average in a variety of ways, it would take some serious screw-ups by this state's legalization leaders to lose another vote.

But such could happen. A recent story in the Portland Mecury, "Slow Burn: A Pot Supporter is Stymieing Our Best Shot at Legal Weed," explains why.

MICHAEL McNICHOLS is a man of marijuana-scented mystery.

McNichols is a Canby attorney who deals in bankruptcies, probate matters, and general civil litigation. He's fiscally minded, an MBA who chairs the budget committee at Clackamas Community College. And, though he didn't much want to talk about it with the Mercury, McNichols says pot should be legal.

"There's no reason it shouldn't be taxed," he said recently in a brief phone conversation. "There's this failed war on drugs."

Which is a funny thing to hear from the person who, more than anyone else, is inhibiting what may be Oregon's best shot at legal weed this year.

McNichols has temporarily blocked the path of Initiative 37, the well-funded, strong-polling proposal to put legalization up for a vote in November. Using a time-tested delay tactic, he's slowing activists' progress just as the Oregon Legislature's made it clear that movement on the issue won't come from Salem.

With a July 3 deadline looming, activists are anxious to begin gathering the nearly 90,000 valid signatures they need to make the ballot.

"The window is shrinking," says Anthony Johnson, chief petitioner and director of New Approach Oregon, the political action committee behind the initiative.

How did McNichols manage to get pot activists on edge? He appealed the initiative's ballot language before the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing the verbiage doesn't adequately summarize the law change. Until the court rules—a move that could happen in two days or two months, for all anyone but the justices know—the proposal is on ice.

All the while, people are scratching their heads about McNichols' intentions.

A March 13 AP story about Oregon marijuana legalization efforts casts more light on the situation:

Stanford is already circulating petitions for two separate pot initiatives. One would amend the state constitution to decriminalize pot use, and the other, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, would create a commission for regulating marijuana cultivation, processing and sales.

Stanford's effort faces competition from the group New Approach Oregon, which is preparing to push a measure that leaves the constitution alone and gives the Oregon Liquor Control Commission the job of regulating marijuana like it does alcohol.

Anthony Johnson of New Approach Oregon said the group has two slightly different initiatives filed with the Secretary of State's Office, but it will go forward with whichever one it feels has the best odds in November. Johnson said he expects to begin collecting the 87,213 signatures needed to qualify one of them for the ballot in as little as a month, but the group is currently waiting for both measures to clear the ballot-titling process, which could delay those plans.

Johnson also has donors lined up to fund the signature drives, which he said could cost between a quarter of a million dollars and three quarters of a million dollars, depending on how quickly the measures' ballot titles can be finalized. He declined to name them, but they're widely believed to include some of the deep-pocketed interests that helped fund successful 2012 legalization drives in Washington state and Colorado.

...In 2012, Stanford successfully got a marijuana-legalization initiative on the ballot, but voters rejected it 47 percent to 53 percent. Legalization advocates spent millions helping to get Washington's and Colorado's measures passed but avoided Oregon, complaining that the measure was poorly drafted and didn't qualify for the ballot in time for them to make an effective case to voters. Stanford also has a contentious relationship with many in the marijuana legalization community.

Frustrating. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes here. Given human nature, likely egos are being bruised and pissing-matches are being played.

Which doesn't bode well for marijuana legalization succeeding in Oregon this year. Personally, I wish Stanford had gotten out of the way after his botched 2012 legalization attempt. Send in a new team, New Approach Oregon.

The New Approach initiative takes the approach that was successful in Colorado and Washington: regulate marijuana akin to liquor. Easy to understand, easy to explain to voters.

Stanford and his Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would allow people to possess and cultivate a lot more marijuna than the New Approach initiative would. At least, that's what I recall from reading stories about the competing initiatives.

Also frustratingly, on their web sites I couldn't find a full description of what the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act and New Approach Oregon initiatives would authorize. Just summaries.

The good news is that it is mid-March. The November election is more than seven months away. The bad news?

The November election is less than eight months away. Those working on the marijuana legalization initiatives should get together, pronto, and figure out how to present a unified front to Oregon voters.

Now I want to share what I've learned about how City officials planned where the police facility should be located in a top-down way without any community input.

Back in January of this year I had a conversation with the lead City staff person for the $80.5 million ($128 million, with financing costs) proposal to build a new Police Facility at the Civic Center and renovate the current buildings there.

Courtney Knox Busch told me that she'd read my blog post, "How City of Salem planned police facility in secretive manner," and wanted to let me know that I was wrong about the City Council not approving the Civic Center location -- just a Council subcommitee.

Well, below is my reply to Ms. Busch concerning what sure seems to be the well-documented truth: the Mayor back in 2010 (Janet Taylor) and City staff decided to start planning for a new police facility at the Civic Center.

What I found, and Ms. Busch didn't disagree with this, is that the Salem City Council didn't explicitly discuss or agree on a Civic Center location for a new police facility. Much less anyone in the broader Salem community.

Yes, on May 24, 2010 the City Council approved an agreement with the University of Oregon to have students engage in some Civic Center planning.Download May 24, 2010 Agreement

But the staff memo describing the agreement says, "It is anticipated the existing Civic Center may be re-used to accommodate City functions that now reside in leased space if the Police Department is located in a separate facility either on the City-owned Civic Center campus or in another location."

Or in another location. It didn't take long for the Mayor and City Manager to forget those words, and tilt the student project solely toward a Civic Center location.

At the end of this post I explain how this pertains to current efforts to foist a $128 million bond measure on Salem taxpayers who never had an opportunity to be involved in deciding where a new police facility should be located.

Here's the message that went to Courtney Knox Busch:

Courtney, thanks for telling me last night [January 28], before the SCV forum, that my blog post about a city council subcommittee deciding on a Civic Center site was inaccurate. That got me to searching the City web site today for historical information on this subject.

Not the most pleasant experience, I have to say. The web site is difficult to navigate — even for someone like me who is pretty cyberspace savvy.

(1) The first 2009-era reference I could find on this subject is this document. The Council Finance Committee recommended moving ahead with a funding request for a new police facility. But there is no mention of where the police facility should be located. In fact, it talks about engaging in a 6 month process of considering alternative sites.

(2) I also found this document. Following consideration of the Budget Committee recommendation in (1), this staff report recommends that the City Council fund an effort to determine the level of support for a new police facility and parks bond measures. But I don’t see any sign of a preferred location, or even that the Council voted in favor of moving ahead with a new police facility.

However, I couldn’t find the 2009 Council goals on the City web site, or via a Google search. If you have any documents that show when/how there was full Council approval of moving ahead with planning for a new police facility, other than the Sustainable Cities Initiative go-ahead mentioned below, please forward them to me (actual documents or links).Download 2009 - 2 Memo re. police facility PDF

(3) I found this extensive document that describes what the public opinion research firm found after interviews with focus groups and telephone surveys. A quick perusal shows there was disagreement about whether a new police facility was needed, and where one should be located if it were to be built. No mention, I recall, that a Civic Center site was the preferred or decided-upon location.

(4) Jumping to the City web page about this project, I looked at the earliest document that is on the Timeline of Council Actions tab. I gather that this relates to what you talked to me about last night: that City staff recommended to the City Council that a subcommittee be formed.

But this was a subcommittee to guide the entire U of O Sustainable Cities Initiative. In a memo, Mayor Janet Taylor said one focus of the student project would be on planning for a new police facility at the Civic Center.

So — and this is important — it sure looks to me like the City staff/Mayor/City Manager decided that a new police facility should be at the Civic Center, and asked the Council to approve a subcommittee that would work with the students on planning for such a facility.

My point — and, repeat, this is important — is that nowhere in the previous documents above (1) - (3) is there any mention of a preferred location for the police facility. The first mention of a Civic Center location pops into existence with the memo from Taylor.

So my conclusion, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the City focus on a Civic Center location for a new police facility occurred without any public hearings or public discussion. Further, the Council decision that enabled this focus was tucked inside a staff recommendation by the Mayor that a subcommittee be formed to work with the U of O students.

Which, to my mind, makes the process even more closed-door than I had first thought.

Based on a Statesman Journal story, I had assumed that a council subcommittee had recommended that the police facility be built at the Civic Center. But seemingly this was a staff recommendation from the Mayor, which was rubber-stamped by the Council in the process of approving the subcommittee to oversee the Sustainable Cities Initiative, and then carried forward by the subcommittee.

As noted above, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

-- Brian

I never was corrected by Courtney Knox Busch. In fact, I never heard anything back from her about this message. So I have to assume that what I discovered via my research is correct.

The City of Salem decided to build a new police facility at the Civic Center without any public hearings or public discussion. City staff and the Mayor made this decision.

All the more reason to rectify this lack of public involvement now. Before moving ahead with further planning for a new police facility at the Civic Center, City of Salem officials should form a broad-based task force to evaluate alternative potential locations.

Those advocating for a lower-cost site away from the Civic Center should be an integral part of this task force. It is time -- no, way past time -- to involve the Salem community in a decision that will markedly affect their pocketbooks.

As the Salem Community Vision FAQs on this subject say, the choice is between a $128 million project or a $64 million project. Saving $64 million is well worth looking into.

A common thread runs through Salem, from the old Boise Cascade property across downtown parking spaces and into the city’s seismically unstable civic center.

The thread is that each of those projects — redeveloping the Boise Cascade site, redoing downtown parking and renovating the civic center — suffered from the same flaw: too little public involvement in the front end, which created big public opposition on the back end.

...And though civic leaders may to bill Salem as the City of Collaboration, it too often resembles the City of Contention.

How does this happen? Here is why:

• Oregonians expect to be involved in public decisions. They want to be heard. That is as Oregon-ish as eschewing umbrellas or wearing socks with sandals.

• A lot of Salem residents have time on their hands to pack public hearings with their arguments. Good for them, but others — the parents and others who seemingly do not have time to attend government meetings — should be represented as well.

• It is human nature for people to only pay attention once they recognize the potential impact on them.

• Meeting agendas often are undecipherable, and thus irrelevant, to the layperson.

I've been singing this song ever since I became involved in City of Salem goings-on.

My first exposure to the climate of citizen disinvolvement at City Hall came when my wife and I were shocked at how five beautiful downtown trees adjoining the US Bank building were cut down for no good reason.

After I contacted City officials, including the Mayor and City Manager, about serious problems with how this debacle of a decision was handled -- such as people being told the tree removals couldn't be appealed, which isn't legally true -- I expected them to respond with "Thanks for letting us know; how can we do better from now on?"

But no.

Without exception, I and others were met with a circle-the-wagons mentality. Citizen involvement was viewed as a distraction, something to be brushed-off, an irritant. Not as an opportunity to improve City of Salem policies or make more informed decisions.

Hughes wrote that this is needed at City Hall:

A commitment to recruiting, not simply encouraging, public involvement. In the spirit of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” it also is essential to involve the potential opponents.

This is a major mistake by the current administration -- failing to engage citizen activists, and also ordinary citizens who have a gripe about how the City of Salem is handling something.

Mayor Anna Peterson, City Manager Linda Norris, and other top officials should watch House of Cards and see how (fictional politician) Frank Underwood does his wily business.

Now, I'm not suggesting they should be as underhanded as Underwood is. But they would benefit from realizing that ignoring your opponents, rather than working with them, is a recipe for political disaster. The City's attempt to foist downtown parking meters on Salemians is a prime example.

Hughes said:

In the case of Salem’s proposed downtown parking meters, the city task force recommendation came across to the public as a done deal, regardless of what officials said.

In addition, task force members implied that their recommendation obviously represented the best-possible solution because they had spent so much time studying the issue. But that is a fallacy of logic. If you travel the wrong road, you won’t arrive at the right destination regardless of how long you spend on that road.

Amazingly, City officials never asked downtown small businessses what they thought about the parking meter proposal, nor was the public allowed to speak at task force meetings. Unsurprisingly, this non-collaborative "our way or the highway" approach was met with a major stop sign: 9,000 signatures on a citizen petition to ban downtown parking meters.

Even more amazingly, Carole Smith and other organizers of the successful petition drive never were contacted by the Mayor or City Manager. They were totally ignored. More proof that Anna Peterson and Linda Norris are dedicated to making this a City of Contention, not Collaboration.

I figured that Smith and her fellow downtown activists would be invited to sit down with City officials and discuss the best way of moving forward on parking policies. This would have been the right thing to do, both politically and ethically.

But the current City Hall attitude is Changing direction is a no-no. Unless you're completely blocked.

Same thing is happening with the City's $80 million proposal for a new police facility and Civic Center renovations. Citizens have pointed out ways to save taxpayers $40 million, which would vastly increase the chance that a bond measure could be passed.

Yet City officials continue to plow ahead on their vastly over-priced $80 million project, which was planned in near-secrecy with very little public involvement.

So unless something changes, it will be blocked. The bond measure will fail.

Salem will be left with an inadequate police headquarters and Civic Center buildings that are seismically unsafe. Again, collaboration would be much better. But this would require City officials to be open-minded and flexible, which aren't qualities often on display these days at City Hall.

I enjoyed the comments on Hughes' piece, which included one from me. I'll share some of them in a continuation to this post. Here's a sample, a comment from Loreen:

This is an excellent opinion piece. It is all true. I have lived in Salem for decades. i cannot remember a time when Salem public processes and decisions have been so secret and decisions made with so little respect for the public's input as with our current City Council. We need some new blood on the Council.

March 08, 2014

My wife and I live in western Oregon, earthquake country. The "Big One" is due. Maybe overdue. But even a smaller earthquake can do a lot of damage.

Seven years ago we had our house retrofitted to make it better able to withstand a major earthquake. Back in 1974, when the house was built, earthquake-ready building standards weren't as rigorous as they are now.

However, recently it dawned on us how unprepared our kitchen cabinets were. Including -- gasp! -- the cabinet where we keep our modest "wine cellar" (eleven bottles at the moment).

If we ever have to suffer through the aftermath of a major earthquake, I damn well want to have some wine available. Post Big One-reality is going to be easier to deal with if I'm not always completely in touch with it.

So today I got around to putting in some Seismolatch cabinet latches that we'd bought on Amazon a while back. This appealingly simple product turned out to be easy to install and, apparently, effective. A You Tube video shows a simulated earthquake test, which naturally I wasn't able to do.

But since we have a set of double cabinets above our refrigerator, I could jiggle the Seismolatch hook and see what happened. Result: it latched!

Here are the two Seismolatches in our wine cabinet. The latch on the left is in the "ready" position, with the hook balanced vertically. The latch on the right is in the "earthquake" position, with the hook released. Once released, the hook keeps the door closed, as shown below.

(At the top those are my fingers holding the door part way open. But if you want to view them as mini-breasts playing peek-a-boo, feel free.)

There's no worry about the doors being stuck closed once a hook is released. With the other cabinet door closed, I was able to easily stick a finger into the door opening that's left when the Seismolatch hook is attached and lift the hook out of the slot.

It's an impressive product. The written instructions weren't completely clear. However, some Sesimolatch instruction videos showed me how simple the installation process is.

I put eight of the ten latches in this afternoon. After the first one, I could install each of the rest in about ten minutes. I drilled pilot holes for the small screws, then screwed them in by hand. Our cabinets are made of a hard wood (maple, I think). My cordless drill wasn't going to put the screws in without a pilot hole.

After installation, the cabinets look exactly the same from the outside. This is one reason why we were attracted to the Seismolatch. Putting a latch on the outside wouldn't have looked good, and we would have needed to unhook it every time we opened the cabinet.

For $25 (the 10-pack price, including free shipping with Amazon Prime) we got a lot of peace of mind. I was planning to only put a few of the Seismolatches in today. But once I started, it was sort of like earthquake prevention potato chips: I couldn't stop with just one or two.

I kept visualizing what almost certainly would be on the floor, broken and unusable, after a major earthquake. And what a mess we'd have to clean up, adding to the stress of an already super-stressful situation.

And so it went, through eight cabinets, including two glass-fronted display cases with a bunch of glassware inside. My wife had afixed museum putty to keep the glassware on the shelves in an earthquake. However, the Seismolatches should be much more reliable.

If you also live in earthquake country, I encourage you to look around your house and consider how secure the stuff in cabinets is. Well, how secure the stuff everywhere is.

There's a big difference, though, between picking cans of food or items of clothing off of the floor, and having to deal with innumerable bits of glass. And the contents of broken glass containers.

I hope we never will learn how Seismolatch functions in a major earthquake. I'm pretty sure the device will work as advertised. Regardless, I've already gotten a big benefit from installing the Seismolatches (more have been ordered).

Feeling like we're better prepared for the Big One.

[Update: it's easy to test the Seismolatch on double doors, because you can push the hook with your finger. On single doors, I've used an eyeglasses holder (or it could be a piece of string with a loop), looping the end past the hook and down as far as possible. Close the door, with the other end of the string/whatever extending on the outside of the door. Pulling on the string will release the hook, leaving you confident that the Seismolatch works. I've never found that it hasn't, but it still feels good to do the test.]

March 06, 2014

Read all about it! How the City of Salem wants taxpayers to pay $128 million for a project that should cost only $64 million.

Sound familiar? It should.

Salem public officials are notoriously poor at using common sense when it comes to spending other people's money. This is the crew that is pushing an unneeded $400 million Third Bridge to solve seismic and traffic flow problems which can be fixed for hundreds of millions less.

Salem Community Vision is working to bring some fiscal sanity to the City's way over-priced proposal for a new police facility and Civic Center renovations.

Recently Salem Community Vision prepared some FAQs -- Frequently Asked Questions -- about this project. It is slated to be discussed at the March 24 City Council meeting.

(1) Does Salem Community Vision support a new police facility and Civic Center renovations?

Absolutely. 100%. We just believe there is a better and less expensive way than what City of Salem officials are proposing. A new police facility should be built out in the community, not at the already-crowded Civic Center. And Salem Community Vision supports efficiently retrofitting the existing Civic Center buildings for seismic safety rather than doing unnecessary major cosmetic remodeling.

(2) What are the benefits of building a new police facility away from the Civic Center?

Saving about $20 million, for one. The Civic Center site requires very expensive underground parking. A new police facility there also will disrupt existing green spaces and obstruct views of the riverfront. Plus, building at another location will stimulate economic redevelopment out in the community while supporting a community policing strategy.

(3) Why is the City so set on the Civic Center site?

It’s difficult to understand why, early on, the Mayor and City Council decided that a new police facility should be at the Civic Center. Current reasons for preferring the Civic Center site aren’t persuasive. For example, not taking private property off of the tax rolls. Saving $20 million in construction costs will far exceed any lost property taxes and minor operational savings. (Note: leasing private property wouldn’t result in any tax losses.) Another example: stationing a police officer at the Civic Center to provide security would be hugely less expensive than building a whole police station there for security reasons.

(4) Doesn’t Salem Community Vision understand how important it is to seismically retrofit City Hall and the Library so lives are saved in a big earthquake?

We always have supported seismic upgrades to the Civic Center. Actually, it was the City of Salem that initially left out seismic retrofitting of the Library from its project budget. Salem Community Vision called for this before the City did. The City estimates that seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library can be done for about $10 million. We believe this is a reasonable cost.

(5) How does the City’s proposal affect existing open spaces and trees at the Civic Center?

All, or almost all, of the trees would be cut down. Peace Plaza trees would be replaced with a parking lot at the west end and on the east by a new building that would house City Council chambers and a courtroom. Mirror Pond would become a drainage swale and have a large multi-story police facility looming over it.

(6) City officials deny that this project was planned in a secretive manner, but Salem Community Vision says otherwise. Who is right?

Well, we are. But don’t believe us; believe the City staffer who wrote in 2011 meeting minutes that even members of the City Council weren’t aware of what was going on with the project. And believe the Statesman Journal editorial board who said in 2013, “So far, one flaw is that officials, despite their good intentions, did not do enough to get the public involved from the outset.” For several years citizens tried to get information about this project, but were rebuffed until full-blown plans were unveiled in the fall of 2013, too late for citizens to have genuine input into planning. From the start, project planning has not been done in an open way that would have allowed the public to easily follow and participate in the decision making process.

(7) How much money can taxpayers save by pursuing the Salem Community Vision alternative to the City’s $80 million project?

Lots. The Salem Community Vision alternative would save taxpayers somewhere around $64 million. Here’s how we figure that. The City is planning a $80.5 million bond levy that would end up costing taxpayers $128 million, including 25 years of interest payments. Salem Community Vision’s alternative plan for a police facility out in the community ($20 million) and lower-cost Civic Center renovations ($20 million) requires a $40 million bond levy. Total cost with interest: about $64 million. Which is also how much taxpayers would save: $64 million. Half-price deal. Sounds good to us.

(8) Who are you guys, anyway? I’ve never heard of Salem Community Vision before. Are you a front group for somebody else?

No. Salem Community Vision was organized in November 2013 by local Salem citizens who have been involved in civic issues for many years. Most of us have served on City and Neighborhood boards and commissions in the past. We have no funding source other than our volunteer hours and out of pocket donations. Members of the steering committee represent a wide range of backgrounds, political views, and life experiences. Working to save taxpayers money and improve government decision-making are goals everybody agrees on. Salem Community Vision is open to anyone and charges no membership fee. Just go to our Facebook page and “Like” us to join.

(9) What’s wrong with the City going ahead with its $80 million proposal and letting voters decide whether to approve a bond levy for it?

The bond levy likely will fail. Polling done by the City of Salem shows that citizens are split on the need for the proposed project. The only hope for the bond levy is if it is as lean and cost-effective as possible. Currently, there is a lot of waste in the $80 million proposal. Salem Community Vision wants a levy to pass. Given the near-certainty of another “Big One” earthquake, lives are in the balance. That’s why we are pushing a $40 million project for seismic retrofitting of the Center and a new police facility that has a good chance of being approved by voters.

(10) The City of Salem has put a lot of time, money, and effort into planning this project. Why should anyone believe Salem Community Vision has come up with a better way?

First, because two people deeply involved with Salem Community Vision, Geoff James and Gene Pfeifer, are a highly experienced architect and design/build specialist, respectively. They were instrumental in finding an affordable way to fix Marion County’s Courthouse Square building. James and Pfeifer know how to cut waste and find more effective construction solutions. Second, (we’ll frame this in the form of another question), have you ever heard of government officials being sure they're right about something, whereas they actually were wrong?

(11) City officials have been reaching out to the public, asking for ideas and comments on this project. Shouldn’t we just trust the Mayor and City Council to do the right thing?

Bluntly put, no. So far officials at the City of Salem have viewed reaching out to mean this: “here’s our $80 million project proposal; reach out and accept it.” While City of Salem staff have made numerous show-and-tell presentations to civic groups and neighborhood associations over the past couple of months, they have not been open planning sessions where the public can offer ideas. Excellent suggestions for building a new police facility and renovating Civic Center buildings at a much lower cost have been pushed aside.

Citizens need to loudly say:

“Yes to a lean $40 million project, No to a wasteful $80 million project.”

Especially if you live in Salem and aren't thrilled about having your taxes raised by hundreds of dollars a year ($200 for 20 years, on a $200,000 house) to pay for a bridge that is utterly unnecessary.

Bassett pointed out lots of facts that argue against spending more than the $7 million that's already been wasted on this Bridge That Is Going Nowhere.

I can confidently call it that for several reasons: (1) Local taxpayers aren't going to approve funding for a bridge that clearly isn't needed; (2) State land use laws are difficult to get around, and this bridge requires exemptions to them.

Here's some of what Bassett said:

-- The $400 million that misguided City of Salem officials want to spend would, at best, speed up travel times at rush hour by three minutes.

-- Even though West Salem has experienced population growth, traffic counts across the current two bridges have been flat.

-- For tens of millions of dollars, not hundreds of millions, fixes can be made to the approaches on both ends of the current bridges. This would increase maximum capacity up to 7,000 cars per hour from 4,000.

-- Bigger solution, yet still way cheaper: for $150 million, three lanes can be added to the current eight lanes on the existing two bridges. No need for an exemption to land use laws for a new bridge outside the urban growth boundary that would impact wetlands and other natural areas.

-- Downtown Salem businesses would be hurt significantly by the so-called "Salem Alternative" bridge plan. It would channel traffic away from the downtown core and toward Keizer Station, I-5, and points north.

-- Thus those who are pushing for an unneeded 3rd Bridge are essentially saying, "downtown is disposable."

-- The proposed $400 million bridge would displace 30 existing businesses and 25 homes. (Yet amazingly, the City of Salem isn't planning any public hearing on the new proposal. Apparently condemning all those businesses and homes isn't considered a "significant" change by officials such as Peter Fernandez, Public Works Director).

-- The existing bridges need to be seismically retrofitted. Maintaining the infrastructure we already have should be the top priority. Other smaller bridges close to Salem Hospital also would be unusable after a major earthquake. Again, fix what we already have.

-- Our two current bridges offer redundancy, along with the pedestrian bridge, as this can be used by vehicles in an emergency. Either of the current bridges can handle traffic in both directions should the other bridge be unusable.

So... what is the need for a $400 million new bridge?

Answer: there isn't one. After more than seven years of planning, it's time to put a stop to the Bridge That is Going Nowhere.

Give No 3rd Bridge a Facebook like if you haven't already. Bassett is a No 3rd Bridge leader. I'm looking forward to seeing him do his "Our Watchdog At City Hall" thing once he is elected to the City Council.

March 03, 2014

Yesterday I went to my first-ever house party for someone running for the Salem (Oregon) City Council. Tom Andersen is a Ward 2 candidate (see here and here).

I don't live in the Salem city limits, though my wife and I have a Salem address. So until recently I didn't pay much attention to City Council goings-on.

But now I'm following what City of Salem officials have been up to. Not a pretty picture.

Beautiful street trees cut down for no good reason. Trying to build an unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for $400 million Third Bridge. Attempting to impose parking meters on downtown without ever talking with small business owners there. Pushing a wasteful $80 million police facility/Civic Center project that should cost only about $40 million. Wanting to have cell phone towers put right next to people's homes.

To name but a few "can you believe this?" outrages.

I enjoyed hearing Andersen talk about his vision for a Salem city government that works for all citizens, not just a favored few. His web site lists some of his positions:

Citizen Involvement is VitalNo 3rd Bridge – Improve What We HaveNew Police Station – but not on Mirror PondImprove the existing Civic Center – Don’t Tear it DownSupport Downtown Development and Free ParkingNo Cell Towers 30 Feet From Residential Property

Sounds good to me.

Two other candidates also will be on the Ward 2 May primary ballot, Bradd Swank and Sheronne Blasi. From what I hear, Andersen and Swank are by far the best candidates. Blasi appears to be the Chamber of Commerce pick -- not a good sign, since Salem needs independent-minded city councillors.

I had my first (2009) and second (2011) colonoscopies elsewhere after being turned off by Salem Gastro's two-full-day prep period. Also, by not being given a good reason for this unusual protocol other than our doctors know best.

I was all set to go elsewhere again. After a single benign polyp was found in both of my previous colonoscopies, I was scheduled to have another exam three years after the second one.

Then a friend told me that her Salem Gastro colonoscopy went fine.

She had requested, and gotten, a low volume prep kit, Suprep. And she liked her Salem Gastro physician, Richard Brandes. Along with Grateful Dead music being played in the procedure room, which I agreed was a clear plus.

So I decided to give Salem Gastro another chance.

I'm glad I did. This time the atmosphere at Salem Gastro struck me as much more relaxed and patient-centered. Lots of joking around. Laughter. Also, efficient. My name was called within a few minutes after I'd checked in at 8:15 am.

I preferred sitting up in a chair during the pre-colonoscopy preparation period: vitals taken, questions asked, etc. Seemed less clinical and medical'y than lying on a bed, like I did in my first two colonoscopies.

Salem Gastro has you keep your shoes and socks on, since you walk to the procedure room. I was wheeled into the procedure room with my previous colonoscopies. Again, more patient-centered. I got juice and a granola bar soon after I woke up from the propofol -- which fits with the sticker I was given that said "FEED ME. I Just Had a Colonoscopy at Salem Endoscopy."

Suprep rocks.

It was great to only have to drink sixteen ounces of good-tasting oral solution, followed by two sixteen-ounce glasses of plain water within an hour (two times: at 9 am the day before the colonoscopy, then at 8 pm that evening).

I recall a gallon of Golytely having to be consumed before my previous colonoscopies. Disgusting. It was refrigerated, so I got chilled from all the cold fluid in my pitifully empty stomach. Suprep tasted quite a bit like a flavored soft drink. I didn't mind drinking it at all.

Nor the two same-sized glasses of water that followed. The results seemed the same as the dreaded Golytely. I'll leave the details at, "Everything came out just fine."

When I met with a physician's assistant at my Is Salem Gastro right for me? appointment, I made a point of asking if I could have propofol rather than a usual sedative. It was fine with the P.A., but he wasn't sure if it would be OK with my insurance company.

Fortunately, it was. Oregon's Regence MedAdvantage plan covers propofol for us Medicare enrollees. I had it for my second colonosopy. Loved propofol. Wrote about the blissful experience.

Some pleasantries were exchanged with the doctor and the nurses. Then the nurse anesthesiologist said she was starting to inject the propofol. For about fifteen seconds I felt completely normal. I was mildly concerned that the sedative wasn't working.

Next thing I knew, the nurse was telling me "We're all done."

My instant intuitive reaction was disappointment. I was disturbed to be back in everyday reality. It had been a lot more pleasant wherever I'd been, consciousness wise. I sort of felt like I'd jumped into ice water after basking on a warm beach.

Exactly the same reaction I had yesterday.

When I heard my name called, "Brian," I opened my eyes and instantly was wide awake. In a flash I realized that I'd just had a colonoscopy. As before, emotionally I was disappointed. I liked being in Propofol Land a lot better.

There's some controversy about whether the additional cost of propofol for a colonoscopy is worth using this drug rather than a traditional sedative. All I can say is, I much prefer propofol.

As did most gastroenterologists and endoscopy nurses who were asked what sedation they would prefer if they were having a screening colonoscopy.

Rockey and Agrawal received responses from 451 gastroenterologists and 460 nurses. Most responders in both groups said they preferred deep sedation with propofol, mainly because they didn't want to feel anything and the recovery time would be faster.

My colonoscopy resulted in Dr. Brandes finding one 8 mm polyp, along with two diminutive polyps. Haven't gotten the pathology results yet. Hopefully they will be the same as before.

All in all this was the easiest colonoscopy for me.

Though after reading the patient instructions that came with the Suprep Kit, I did mentally fuss a bit about the Salem Gastro prep schedule -- since Suprep says "On the day before your procedure you may have a light breakfast or have clear liquids ONLY; please have nothing for dinner."

Well, on the day before the day of my procedure I was told to stop eating regular food at noon.

I fudged a bit. Made an Amy's Pizza about noon and ate almost all of it by 1 pm. But this was just four hours different from the prep schedule for my second colonoscopy, where I was told to stop eating at 5 pm on the day before the day of the procedure.

I was hungriest on the evening of the first day of my prep, Wednesday. By Thursday I guess my stomach had entered a state of acceptance, or whatever. Fueled with coffee, clear apple juice, fruit-less jello, and fake "chicken" broth, I actually felt pretty damn good all day.

My main advice for those getting a colonoscopy: ask for a low-volume prep like Suprep (don't know if there are other choices). And get knocked out with propofol if possible.